2026 NCAA Tournament Bracket Projection
Generated Sunday, February 22, 2026
Field
Bids
Bids
Projected #1 Seeds
The current #1 seeds in our projected NCAA Tournament bracket are Michigan, Duke, Arizona, and Gonzaga. Michigan earned the top line with a 25-2 overall record and a 15-1 mark in the Big Ten Conference, boasting a NET ranking of #1 and a bracket score of 99.6 according to our model. Their impressive quad 1 record of 9-1 and quad 2 record of 10-1 demonstrate their ability to perform well against top-tier opponents. Duke, on the other hand, has compiled a 25-2 overall record and a 13-1 record in the Atlantic Coast Conference, with a NET ranking of #2 and a bracket score of 99.0 according to our model. Their quad 1 record of 13-2 is particularly notable, showcasing their strength in high-level games.
Arizona and Gonzaga round out the #1 seeds, with Arizona boasting a 25-2 overall record and a 12-2 mark in the Big 12 Conference, along with a NET ranking of #3 and a bracket score of 97.2 according to our model. Their quad 1 record of 11-2 and undefeated quad 2 record of 5-0 highlight their consistency against strong opponents. Gonzaga, meanwhile, has a 27-2 overall record and a 15-1 record in the West Coast Conference, with a NET ranking of #5 and a bracket score of 94.5 according to our model. While their quad 1 record of 6-1 is not as extensive as the other top seeds, their undefeated quad 2 record of 5-0 and strong conference performance demonstrate their overall strength. Michigan, Duke, Arizona, and Gonzaga have all demonstrated the requisite strength and consistency to earn #1 seeds, with each team's unique profile and accomplishments setting them apart from one another.
The last four teams projected in the NCAA Tournament field are holding on to their spots by narrow margins. Texas is currently sitting at a 77.7 bracket score, according to our model, with a 5-7 record in Quad 1 games and a 2-2 record in Quad 2 games. Their 8-6 conference record and NET ranking of 39 are also contributing factors to their position. However, their vulnerability lies in their relatively weak Quad 1 performance, which could be exploited by other teams on the bubble. Auburn is also in a precarious position, with a 77.4 bracket score and a 5-10 record in Quad 1 games. Their NET ranking of 32 is a positive factor, but their 6-8 conference record is a concern.
UCLA and Indiana are also fighting to stay in the tournament field. UCLA has a 76.9 bracket score, according to our model, with a 3-7 record in Quad 1 games and a 4-2 record in Quad 2 games. Their 10-6 conference record is a strength, but their NET ranking of 41 is a weakness. Indiana, on the other hand, has a 77.3 bracket score, with a 2-10 record in Quad 1 games, which is a significant concern. Their 8-8 conference record and NET ranking of 36 are not strong enough to outweigh their poor Quad 1 performance. Texas, Auburn, Indiana, and UCLA all need to be careful, as a loss or two could drop them out of the tournament field, and their positions are not secure. Auburn and Indiana have the most to worry about, given their weaker conference records and Quad 1 performances.
The first four teams out of the NCAA Tournament field are facing an uphill battle to secure a spot in the bracket. TCU has a bracket score of 75.5 according to our model, and needs to improve its 4-7 record in Quad 1 games to bolster its resume. With a NET ranking of 47, TCU must focus on closing out its conference schedule strong, as its 7-7 record in the Big 12 Conference is a concern. Missouri, with a bracket score of 75.3 according to our model, has a similar issue with its Quad 1 record, standing at 4-5. Missouri's NET ranking of 60 is also a hindrance, and the team must work on addressing its 4-4 mark in Quad 2 games to demonstrate its ability to compete against tougher opponents.
San Diego State and USC are also on the outside looking in, with bracket scores of 75.1 and 75.0 according to our model, respectively. San Diego State's poor Quad 1 record of 1-5 is a significant gap in its resume, and the team must find a way to overcome this weakness despite its strong 12-4 record in the Mountain West Conference. USC, meanwhile, needs to shore up its Quad 1 record, which currently stands at 2-6, and improve upon its 7-9 mark in the Big Ten Conference. With a NET ranking of 58, USC has work to do to convince the committee of its worthiness, and must focus on building a stronger overall profile to play its way into the tournament. TCU, Missouri, San Diego State, and USC all have their work cut out for them if they hope to crack the tournament field.
The current state of the bracket remains relatively unchanged, with Michigan, Duke, Arizona, and Gonzaga still holding onto their number one seeds. According to our model, these teams have maintained their strong positions, with no new teams emerging as serious threats to their top seeds. The bubble remains stable, with no new teams entering or exiting the last four in, and no teams dropping from consideration. The overall field of 68 teams, consisting of 31 auto-bids and 37 at-large bids, continues to take shape, with the top seeds solidifying their positions and the middle tier of teams jockeying for position in the at-large pool, as the season enters its final stretch, with no significant changes expected in the near term, according to our model.
How Our Bracket Model Works
Normalized 0–100 from rank position. The NCAA's own evaluation tool combining wins/losses and game-level efficiency across all Division I opponents.
Weighted quality score — Q1 wins +5, Q1 losses −1, Q2 wins +2.5, Q2 losses −2.5, Q3 wins +0.5, Q3 losses −5, Q4 wins 0, Q4 losses −8. Normalized 0–100.
SoR rank normalized 0–100. Measures how impressive a team's record is given the difficulty of its schedule — a 20-win team in a weak conference scores lower than a 20-win team in the ACC.
Adjusted offensive minus defensive efficiency (points per 100 possessions). Captures how dominant a team is regardless of pace. Normalized 0–100 across the field.
60% road record value + 40% SOS rank, both normalized. Rewards teams that schedule tough and win away from home — factors the committee explicitly values.
Final bracket score = weighted sum of all five components, scaled 0–100.
Our Model vs. The Selection Committee
The NCAA Selection Committee uses the same core inputs — NET rankings, quad records, strength of schedule, and road record — but applies subjective judgment to each case. Committee members can weigh injuries, recent form, head-to-head results, conference tournament performance, and what is often called the “eye test.”
Our model is purely data-driven: the same formula applied consistently to every team, with no adjustments for narrative or circumstance. That removes human bias — but it also means we can't account for context that only humans can evaluate. When the model and the committee diverge, it's often because of factors that don't yet show up in the numbers.